If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Chad Ford Chat

What is the best way for the Pacers to reintegrate Danny Granger without disrupting Paul George's emergence and reviving an anemic offense (bench in particular)?Chad Ford (1:11 PM)

I fully expect that by the start of next season Granger will be wearing a different jersey. The challenge right now is how to bring him back, prove to teams he's still a pseudo-All-Star so that his trade value is high, and not disrupt what's happening in Indy. George is the future of the franchise and Granger's absence has given him the opportunity to emerge. They can't mess with that. But they don't want to sell Granger for pennies on the dollar. Lots of veteran teams would be interested in him if they are comfortable that he can stay healthy. Look for Golden State, Toronto, Houston, Dallas to all pursue.

Re: Chad Ford Chat

After he has missed so much time his value will be reassessed league wide. How he returns after this injury will dictate how much we can get for him in a package. If he is the DG of old I would accept nothing less than Lowry and a 1st.

Re: Chad Ford Chat

After he has missed so much time his value will be reassessed league wide. How he returns after this injury will dictate how much we can get for him in a package. If he is the DG of old I would accept nothing less than Lowry and a 1st.

I agree, but I also think Chad Ford missed the fact that Lance Stephenson claiming the 2 spot and continuing to improve is the reason there might not be room for Granger after this season (PG was going to start at the 2 or 3 regardless).

Lowry and a 1st would be good, because Toronto's 1st will be a high pick. But I'd accept Lowry only if he was willing to be a backup, and depending on Augustin's future I might be ok with two 1sts and they keep Lowry.

I think the only piece we need now is a young, scoring-minded big. But nobody's gonna give one of those away.

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Doddage For This Useful Post:

Re: Chad Ford Chat

I think Chad Ford is simply wrong.
The idea of trading Granger for Mayo and we give up a pick is nuts.
IMO Cuban still owes us a pick from the fleecing he gave the Pacers this past summer.
If we traded Granger for Mayo we'd better be the one getting a 1st. round pick back.
I just don't see a trade where we get the value that Granger gives the Pacers back in a trade. We don't need to move him to get the most out of PG, and I think he'll sign for less when his contract is up. Granger should be a Pacer for life unless a no brainer lopsided trade comes our way.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MyFavMartin For This Useful Post:

Re: Chad Ford Chat

I think what Ford is saying is correct. I don't think the Pacers will trade Danny just because Paul is as good or better or any of that. Most likely it will come down to a money issue . Can we afford to pay both Danny and Paul that much money and have a bench or West or any other decent players (besides what we already have in Hill and Roy)

The Following User Says Thank You to Johanvil For This Useful Post:

Re: Chad Ford Chat

If Danny is going to be our Detlef, we need to get pieces that fulfill a need, not just castoffs or a cheaper Danny - and certainly not a "potential" player or draft pick. If you think that PG and Lance are in fact heading to the star level, do you try to package Danny for a multi-team deal that nets a true 6th 7th and 8th position wing, point, and big man?

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

Re: Chad Ford Chat

Someone said it last night, and I'll say it again.. People seem to underestimate Lance's potential. Why trade Granger for a starter, to break up the continuity of this starting five already in place. The Kyle Lowry proposals strike me as odd as well considering George Hill is the perfect Billups (low turnovers, high bball iq, clutch, defender) like point guard for our team. If we must trade Granger, I think we should do so in a way that lands us cap space, prospects (especially at the PF position), and perhaps some veteran help for our still shaky bench. Any trade that takes away our leader, disrupts the starting line up, and halts the development of Lance are ignorant.